Osler's Razor

Yes, I think nuclear power should, and perhaps must, be a part of our national energy strategy. The terms, however, ought to be somewhat restrictive where safety and security are a factor.

For example, we should probably not build reactors in earthquake or tsunami prone areas. Additionally, we should learn from the Russian and Japanese experiences and focus on better containment structures and more stringent failsafe mechanisms (e.g. batteries that can last longer than 8hrs in the event of a protracted power failure).

Still, to summarily eliminate a clean, efficient production method from our comprehensive energy strategy because of the tragedy in Japan reeks of myopic, reactionary policy making.
 

I disagree with CTL. The tragedy in Japan is just one (albeit a particularly horrendous one) in a series of example of the dangers posed by nuclear power. Europe is still experiencing high levels of radiation as a result of Chernobyl. I think it is unrealistic to think we can adequately deal with safety issues.
Listen to this sobering statement: http://eddieleaks.org/2011/03/15/bernstein-caldicott/
 

The problem with nuclear is that it needs to be near a major source of water, and those areas tend to be unstable.
 

Oh, and I hope that extension cord gets there soon!
 

I thought this article was pretty good on this point:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/15/opinion/la-oe-goldberg-japan-20110315

Look, its all a question of what you value. Nuclear power is the only current alternative energy source that is financially viable and technologically viable enough to compete with and potentially replace fossil fuels. Maybe someday we will figure out large scale solar or wind, but until that time nuclear energy is the only game in town when it comes to replacing fossil fuels without destroying the economy.

So, if you're a hippie, are you more worried about the alleged destruction of the planet through "global warming"? Or are you more worried about the minute possibility of reactor meltdowns and leaks?

Personally, I don't give a rip. Drill baby drill!
 

I agree with CTL -

Lee
 

RRL, The danger of meltdowns doesn't exactly seem "minute" right now.
 

well yes, the danger of meltdowns doesn't seem minute right now, because you've chosen to examnie the chances of a meltdown at the precise moment that a meltdown might be taking place. Which would be like saying that the chances of an asteroid strike are 99% as you stare up into the sky at a giant asteroid about to strike the earth.

There have been less than 25 major accidents involving nuclear power in the nearly 50 years that it has been widely utilized.

"Comparing the historical safety record of civilian nuclear energy with other forms of electrical generation, Ball, Roberts, and Simpson, the IAEA, and the Paul Scherrer Institute found in separate studies that during the period from 1970 to 1992, there were just 39 on-the-job deaths of nuclear power plant workers worldwide, while during the same time period, there were 6,400 on-the-job deaths of coal power plant workers, 1,200 on-the-job deaths of natural gas power plant workers and members of the general public caused by natural gas power plants, and 4,000 deaths of members of the general public caused by hydroelectric power plants. In particular, coal power plants are estimated to kill 24,000 Americans per year, due to lung disease as well as causing 40,000 heart attacks per year in the United States. According to Scientific American, the average coal power plant emits more than 100 times as much radiation per year than a comparatively sized nuclear power plant in the form of toxic coal waste known as fly ash."
 

I agree with RRL, plus one cannot judge the future of nuclear energy based on the events unraveling now in Japan. That is simply because Japan has probably the most seismic hazardous status on the map. To prove it, they have the most stringent construction codes in place. Too bad when it came to the construction of their nuclear power plants they opted for a type of reactor (incidentally named Mark) designed by GE that was, let me guess, cheaper to built and with serious containment issues in the event of, quoting Anon 9:39, extension cord burning out. As for tsunamis, they practically invented the word tsunami. They also erected those attrocious sea walls that have only given people a small window of time to run and a false sense of security…not to mention, a total obstruction of the ocean, so they had no way of visually being aware of the enormity coming their way.
 

I don't know enough to comment but have enjoyed the thought and opinions here. Also, it's St. Patrick's Day... Who is drinking a Guinness?
 

Should the President stay home?
No - he has intelligent people working for him (and us) who have his ear 24/7 and keep him aprised of the situation. He doesn't need to sit in DC.

Great new piece in Outside Magazine about Chernobyl - worth a read. Nuclear power has it's place as does coal, oil, natural gas, solar, wind. All energy sources require people to make smart, rational decisions on how and where to use them.

It is hard to think rationally about nuclear energys future when the people of Japan are staring at a potential meltdown. At least the population has an opportunity to try and move away from danger. Hard to do under normal circumstances and worse when the regional infastructure is paralyzed from the earthquake and tsunami.

And having listened (ad nauseum) to the news this week I have yet to hear how the radioactive cloud over the Pacific is going to impact the marine food supply. The cloud may not reach the west coast of the US, but it will at some point get into the food chain.
 

There is this perspective on nuclear power: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42347#
 

Agreed with Christine on the president's focus. I'm mean, if he didn't go Republicans would say he's not doing anything about the economy!
 

@ Septimus -
The terms multi-tasking and WiFi comes to mind. That and a 24/7 news cycle....